Thursday, April 26, 2012

Another Spate of Gun Violence in Chicago

Chicago police discover a man shot dead within a block of a Southwest
Side high school and six others were wounded in separate shootings that
occurred across the city in less than 12 hours.

The gun-rights folks pretend it makes no sense when I blame them for this. I don't know what could be more clear than the fact that every weapon used in these Chicago shootings started out the legally owned property of a lawful gun owner.

Pro-gun attitudes against simple, non-intrusive legislation that would help, is what's to blame. This is backed by the NRA and gun manufacturers for the obvious monetary interests that they have. The results are inevitable and disasterous.

And the entire time the gun guys are feigning innocence by saying it's not their fault and they have nothing to do with it.

1. Given the number of guns that exist in this country right now, it would take decades, if not centuries, to get all of them into the system. Do you really imagine that all the gun owners of America will line up to register their guns and get licenses to have what they already own? You don't know Americans. Your proposals will only affect new guns entering the system.

2. Since you don't know where those guns actually come from, you're guessing that they all were once owned by legal American gun owners. Can you establish that none of them crossed the border illegally?

3. We refuse to compromise in part because your side refuses to compromise. You ask for what we'll give up, but tell us nothing that you will give in return. And please don't say that you'll let us own suppressors. That's a minor point. We want a guaranteed right to carry a concealed handgun everywhere. You don't like that, but that's the point. To get something important, you have to be willing to give up something important.

Mike, I don't know of anyone except criminals that think that criminals having firearms is a good thing. However, them breaking one standing law, stealing a law abiding citizens firearm, so that they can break another law, committing murder, is not a reason to restrict my rights as a law abiding citizen. What we could do, since they violated someone's right to life, is take their life. A public hanging is a time tested method to set a proper example for others in their comunity who would seek to emulate them. Another simple measure that would help is to arm all citizens so that they are able to defend themselves. One need look no further than Switzerland to see the effects of an armed populace on crime rates. What "simple, non-intrusive legislation" did you have in mind? The legislation that I have seen attempted has attempted to restrict how, when, and where I can exercise my right to defend myself and others. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but I don't know anyone who believes that I don't have the right to defend myself so I really am interested in hearing where you're coming from on this.

1. You advocate for lax gun laws or none at all which put guns in criminal hands, private sales with no background check, to name just one.2. You pretend the world of gun owners is divided neatly into two groups, good guys and bad guys. This is false. The group called "good guys" contains many individuals who are unfit and irresponsible, many others who are criminals who haven't been caught yet, and yet others who because of drug or alcohol or rage problems are walking time bombs.

So individuals who responsibly exercise their rights are to blame for criminals who abuse those rights? Where does that line of reasoning lead? I can't see it leading to a free society governed by an equal application of the rule of law...

As well as restrictions on free speech, censorship of a free press, and limitations on free practice of religion. It seems like it would be better to publicly execute criminals as an example than to start restricting rights to coddle them. Why should law abiding citizens have to suffer for their actions?

yes publicly hang all of them. You have the right idea. Crime would stop . To the person who wrote this article, Dont tell me the criminal should be punished humainly after he killed a child. Hang them in the streets in public. Dont take my right away because you cant stop criminals. The men who gave us freedom would hang all you inti-gun idiots who use the 1st ammendment that they gave their lives for you to have and use it to try and steal our 2nd ammendment. The 1st ammendment does not allow people to take away freedom you peice of garbage.

"Mike, I don't know of anyone except criminals that think that criminals having firearms is a good thing."

Oh really? Ever hear of the NRA?

Switzererland isn't a particularly good example. After all, Swiss gun laws incorporate registration and actually involve background checks into not just criminal history but physical and meental health as well.

Why is it that Jadegold can draw conclusions such as the one in his comment here and not get called a liar. He claims that the NRA is in favor of criminals getting guns. Does he have any evidence for that claim? Of course not. Can he provide even one statement to that effect? Of course not. But when we draw the conclusion that gun control advocates wish that guns were banned, we must be lying.

Both polor opposites, or political parties, are going to go to the extreme on any issue. Registration wouldn't be such a huge issue if it wasn't started by Hitler prior to him confiscating firearms. California did the same thing with their "assault" rifles. Switzerland also requires military participation and issues a weapon to citizens at 18, that looks like a "well regulated militia" to me. Would you be willing to make that compromise then?

Mike- Contrary to a comment you left me awhile back, I understand your point. I don't even necessarily disagree with you on some of your ideas. But you have to stop making up what you may beleive to be facts. In Chicago, there are a lot of guns on the streets due to break-ins at suburban gun shops. These guns were never purchased legally by the public. Chicago also has a buy back program. $25-$100 gift card to Jewel (Local grocery chain) for turning in a illegal firearms, or even legally owned ones. The police take them, store them until the program is over (Usually a week), then ships them to be destroyed. Last year, one of these storage facilities was robbed. An estimated 286 firearms were stolen.I do understand your concern, I truly do. But I think you're pushing the envelope with this post. You've said before that you do not want to ban guns all together. But, the only way to avoid the criminals in Chicago from getting guns, is to ban "Legal" gun ownership. But, the criminals will still get them, unless you also want to ban the police from having guns. I don't think anyone here believes that's a good idea.

MikeB stated,"... the fact that every weapon used in these Chicago shootings started out the legally owned property of a lawful gun owner ..."Except for the fact that all of those guns were smuggled into the U.S. or custom made in local machine shops. Sources you ask? I'll provide mine after MikeB provides his.

"Pro-gun attitudes against simple, non-intrusive legislation that would help, is what's to blame."Blaming citizens for the actions of criminals is retarded ... not to mention that laws already exist regarding assault, murder, theft of firearms, straw sales, use of firearms to commit a crime, criminals purchasing firearms, criminals possessing firearms, etc. So it cannot be lack of legislation either.

If guns and/or pro-gun attitudes are the problem, can someone tell me why there wasn't a single violent crime at any of the thousands of gun ranges in the U.S. the last, oh I don't know, 236 years?

CC, are you really arguing that the Chicago shootings were done with home made guns or those smuggled in with the huge shipments of Cocaine, which these guys are using and selling at the lowest rung of the operation?

Proper gun control legislation is not a punishment any more than mandating that you must wear a seatbelt while driving.

At gun ranges there are frequent suicides and accidents. Aren't they violent crimes?

"At gun ranges there are frequent suicides and accidents. Aren't they violent crimes?"

First, I do not agree that suicides and accidents are frequent at gun ranges. I have never heard of any account of a suicide at a gun range. And I have only heard about one or two anecdotal accounts of accidents at some gun range somewhere in the U.S. in my lifetime.

Regardless, suicides and accidents are not violent crimes. (Violent crimes are rapes, armed robberies, assaults, and murders.) Almost everyone has a gun at a gun range. If lot's of people having guns causes violent crime, how come the violent crime rate at gun ranges is quite literally zero over the past 200+ years?

How do you explain gun crime in the UK where the gun laws there are anything but non-intrusive? I am sure you have heard of "Gunchester"? And the UK had far less of a gun culture, and far fewer guns, when it enacted its most draconian measures. Yes it has less of it, but it is a smaller country and never had the level of violence (let alone gun violence) that America has. How is it criminals in the UK still manage to get guns?

The genie is out of the bottle and no amount of legislation can set things back to 1312. Guns are part of the world we live in. Honestly, if gun owners are to blame then should not gun makers like FN, Colt, and Norinco share much of the blame as well? Where does that like of thinking stop?

There are two reasons that MikeB's approach will never reduce violent crime:(a) Violent criminals will use any and every possible weapon to attack people -- including knives, swords, bats, sticks, rocks, hammers, axes, chains, pipes, etc. There is no direct evidence that reducing the supply of firearms will reduce violent crime.(b) There is no evidence that it is possible to reduce the supply of firearms to criminals. Firearms are a "tool of the trade" for criminals and way too valuable to give up. All the legislation in the world will not stop local machine shops from making pistols, smugglers from "importing" handguns, and criminals from making their own "zip guns" from a few dollars in parts readily available at local hardware stores.

And yet there are no violent crimes at gun ranges where everyone is armed. And then we have to wrap our head around another fact. Yesterday there were about 44 violent crimes in my state that involved a firearm. The crazy thing is that none of the 2.58 million or so citizens in the state who have guns committed any of those crimes. That's staggering: 2.58 million citizens who own guns and none of them committed a violent crime yesterday.

If you are wondering about that number (44 violent "gun crimes"), there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2010. Divide that number by 365 days per year and 50 states and you get 66 violent crimes in my state yesterday. And then the attacker uses a firearm in about 2/3 of their attacks so there were something like 44 violent crimes yesterday in my state where the attacker used a firearm.

Oh and the other number (2.58 million citizens that own firearms): there are about 80 million firearms owners in the U.S. with a population of 310 million. So about 25.8% of the U.S. population owns firearms. And since my state has something like 10 million residents, there are about 2.58 million citizens in my state that own firearms.

"End the war on drugs and the drug dealers will stop killing each other. Guns have little to do with it. Pretty simple solution."

By that sort of logic, if the various hate groups that want to stop gay marriage step up their efforts, we will see an end to domestic violence involving gunz?

"We want a guaranteed right to carry a concealed handgun everywhere."

And I, mikeb302000 and many millions of others want the right to enjoy our lives without fuckhead vigilante wannabes shooting us or someone else that they perceive as a threat. You guys all want the pony, but you're unwilling to muck out the stall and deal with the horseshit.

"Do you really imagine that all the gun owners of America will line up to register their guns and get licenses to have what they already own?"

So, once again, you're saying that all of the LAGO's will suddenly become criminals, breaking federal laws?

"Another simple measure that would help is to arm all citizens so that they are able to defend themselves. One need look no further than Switzerland to see the effects of an armed populace on crime rates."

One only needs to look as far as Switzerland to see that Switzerland is having some second thoughts about everybody hazzin' teh gunz. An attempt to legislate some form of gun control failed last year, it's not a dead issue. Some swiss are advocating for a professional army (other than the officer cadre and civil servants who are already in place) so that there WON'T be a gun in every closet. Will they get to that state of affairs? I don't know, but the fact that there is serious discussion about it is an indication that even the nearly universally armed swiss are concerned about teh gunzcrimez.

"In Chicago, there are a lot of guns on the streets due to break-ins at suburban gun shops. These guns were never purchased legally by the public."

And they were never secured properly by the gun shops. Nobody cries when jewelers are robbed--especially, if they're robbed more than once--when they don't have effective safeguards for the merch. While it's true that few gunz are worth many thousands of dollars, it is also true that few if any people have been killed or injured, intentionally or otherwise, by a diamond ring or tennis bracelet.

"Last year, one of these storage facilities was robbed. An estimated 286 firearms were stolen."

I keep telling you guyz, I don't give cops a free pass, they can be just as ignorant and careless as anyone else. When something like that happens it's an indication of two things. The first is that they don't have safe, secure storage. The second is that there should be no "estimate" of how many gunz went missing. They should know the make, model and serial # of every weapon they have in their possession, even if it's temporary.

"And I, mikeb302000 and many millions of others want the right to enjoy our lives without fuckhead vigilante wannabes shooting us or someone else that they perceive as a threat"

I have great news for you Demmocommie: your wish has come true! No armed citizens accosted you yesterday. And no armed citizens will accost you today or tomorrow!

Gun control logic amazes me. Armed citizens are paranoid whackjobs because we are concerned about the 1.2 million+ violent crimes that happen every year. And the gun control crowd is a bastion of sanity for their fears about the handful of armed citizens who fail to control their "itchy" trigger fingers every year.

Yet another day passes that not a single one of the 2.5+ million armed citizens in my state assaulted anyone with a firearm. Did criminals assault someone? Sure. Did an armed citizen with no criminal record assault someone? No.

1) You should not have to register to exercise a right. I will register a gun when you register to speak.

2) Rights are granted by God and cannot be limited by government, period. I will stop carrying a gun when you stop running your mouth.

3) You can feel safe and secure in your person. The fact that you lack the individual responsiblilty to provide for your own defense and trust the government to do it for you should not infringe on my right to self defense.

4) Look at history. The reason that we have a right to keep and bear arms is because of our history. During the English Civil War Parliament had to raise an army of citizens to overthrow a tyrannical King. During our own Revolution we raised an army of citizens to overthrow another tyrant. One of the first laws that Hitler enacted was gun registration, soon followed by confiscation. It wasn't until after that that he was able to do as he pleased. An armed society is the ultimate check on tyrants. As long as we retain these rights we don't have to use them, the fact that they are there is enough to keep would-be-tyrants in check. It is only when these rights are lost that they are needed.

5) I am as concerned about armed criminals and negligent gun owners as you are. I am more than willing to work with you to address these problems. States could implement firearms training in elementary schools to teach safety. We could go back to public execution of criminals, which has shown over history to be an effective deterent to violent crime. We could go back to our militia system and require all citizens to be armed and train with those firearms regularly. If you have any other reasonable solutions I am willing to hear you out. Restricting the rights of individuals has never been proven to deter crime or tyranny.

"... the fact that every weapon used in these Chicago shootings started out the legally owned property of a lawful gun owner ..."Except for the fact that all of those guns were smuggled into the U.S. or custom made in local machine shops. Sources you ask? I'll provide mine after MikeB provides his."

Since we don't have access to police reports for all--or likely, any--of the criminal uses of gunz in Chicago, it's impossible to know the provenance of the gunz. Some of them are certainly of foreign manufacture. Some of them may be smuggled (the question would be, "Why, why would anyone take a chance of running afoul of Customs when they can much more easily buy gunz here?"). Are you suggesting that any significant fraction of those gunz were NOT made in a licensed gun factory or by a licensed gunsmith? mikeb302000's not asking, I am.

"(a) Violent criminals will use any and every possible weapon to attack people -- including knives, swords, bats, sticks, rocks, hammers, axes, chains, pipes, etc. There is no direct evidence that reducing the supply of firearms will reduce violent crime."

But they use gunz--cuz gunz are easy to get when OLAGO decide that the lawz that they don't like need not be obeyed--if given a choice. Nothing like a rock, knive, stick, etc.,. is going to do the job as well--this little fact is beat on day and night by you guyz and your childish obsession with large bore handcannonz.

"(b) There is no evidence that it is possible to reduce the supply of firearms to criminals. Firearms are a "tool of the trade" for criminals and way too valuable to give up. All the legislation in the world will not stop local machine shops from making pistols, smugglers from "importing" handguns, and criminals from making their own "zip guns" from a few dollars in parts readily available at local hardware stores."

Nice red herring AND strawman. Nobody has ever said that it is impossible for criminals to get their hands on guns. It is a known fact that reducing supply increases demand BECAUSE the product is more difficult to obtain.

"And yet there are no violent crimes at gun ranges where everyone is armed. And then we have to wrap our head around another fact. Yesterday there were about 44 violent crimes in my state that involved a firearm. The crazy thing is that none of the 2.58 million or so citizens in the state who have guns committed any of those crimes."

Boy, you must spend most of your day in your batcave with the scannerz and six flickering monitors giving you all of the information about the days gun related crimes. Otherwise how could you make such an apparently stupid set of assertions?

"It is a known fact that reducing supply increases demand BECAUSE the product is more difficult to obtain."

But your desired legislation cannot reduce supply. All your desired legislation could possibly do is eliminate some existing supply channels (e.g. private purchases without background checks). But this will not reduce supply because other existing supply channels can easily provide more guns. And new supply channels that are not currently used in large scale can be ramped up without limit.

This is not a logical fallacy. It is critical because all gun control arguments become meaningless if they cannot actually reduce the supply of firearms in the hands of criminals. And what I have illustrated is that it is impossible to reduce the supply of firearms in the hands of criminals.

I will also argue that it is impossible to significantly alter the black market price of firearms. If a small machine shop can legally manufacture firearms and sell them legally for a profit at $300 each, then any machine shop can illegally manufacture firearms and sell them illegally for a profit at $300 each. If the profit motive for the legal shop was sufficient to operate, then it will be sufficient for the illegal shop as well.

"Boy, you must spend most of your day in your batcave with the scannerz and six flickering monitors giving you all of the information about the days gun related crimes. Otherwise how could you make such an apparently stupid set of assertions?"

There is nothing stupid about my assertions. If an armed citizen with no criminal record assaulted someone, the lamestream media would be all over it. And if that armed citizen had a concealed carry license, the lamestream media would really lambaste them. But no such thing happened yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that, and so on.

Oh, and we can look at the violence policy center's concealed carry killers compilation. That breaks down to about 1 concealed carry license holder per state per year that uses their firearm to attack someone illegally.

And then we have the fact that people with previous criminal records are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. What are the recidivism rates -- well over 90%? And gang/drug activity is involved in what -- well over 90% of firearm attacks?

I suppose I could start taking transcripts of my conversations with friends who are law enforcement officers. They say the same thing.

"This is not a logical fallacy. It is critical because all gun control arguments become meaningless if they cannot actually reduce the supply of firearms in the hands of criminals. And what I have illustrated is that it is impossible to reduce the supply of firearms in the hands of criminals'

It is a logical fallacy, unless you're willing to admit that significant numbers of LAGO are perfectly willing to break the law if it means they can profit by doing so.

You gunzloonz love to tout your ability to deal with the criminulz that menace you--what happens when you're the lawbreakers? Oh, wait, I know, as long as OLAGO are not killing YOU or YOUR family, you simply don't give a fuck--you never did, you never will. Why not just be honest and say--fuck everybody but me?

You make assertions like this one:

"And then we have the fact that people with previous criminal records are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime. What are the recidivism rates -- well over 90%? And gang/drug activity is involved in what -- well over 90% of firearm attacks?"

with NO citations to anything that backs them up. Greg Camp likes to do that a lot, he's a fucking LIAR; what are you?